If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: small cell foundation

Many people hoot and holler, but there's no downside to small cell.
(maybe a little more wax made) I use PF120's or go foundationless in my langs.
The PF120's are easier, and no crossed comb.
Read what people write, but learn from yourself.
People will form opinions and defend them to the death; right or wrong.
I have wee bees and I like wee bees.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by beemandan

If the stuff is effective enough to be promoted in the idiot’s guide, it would appear that this so called sloppy science would have skewed the results in the favor of sc.

Irrelevant. There can be no comparison made in the study because what was being compared had too many variables. Compare wax big with wax small, or plastic big with plastic small, not wax big with plastic small. You can't compare two treatments (plastic AND small cell) without at least four test groups. A portion of the research I am about to finish now (nothing to do with bees) used four groups to test two treatments. My thesis committee would have laughed me out of the conference room if I had pulled something like this. This got through because it was reviewed by people unfamiliar with the subject.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by deknow

...so thick that the density of cells on the comb is the same as 5.4 large cell comb.

What's the role of cell density on the success or failure of SC? On http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm Mr. Bush calls out HSC as 4.9, but says nothing about cell-frame density or even cell volume, which would seem to be an important parameter. Are you suggesting that for SC to be effective that the cells must be no greater than 4.9 cell-to-cell width, have an overall cell density of 4.9 on average per frame, and not have flat bottoms?

Re: small cell foundation

I can't post further until I get some other important things done, but briefly:

1. Michael, I'll reply to you later
2. We do recommend HSC in our book as a regression tool....for expansion beyond 1 box we recommend SC foundation (with an inch or so gap at the bottom) and foundationless.
3. If I offered you fully drawn plastic comb (a 5.4mm version of HSC) as an even swap for your best drawn comb (the LC comb in the Seeley study had no drone cells), would you take me up on it? Plastic material, thick walls, less cells per frame, flat bottoms, thermodynamically very different from wax. You would prefer best wax? Why? Because they are not equivalent? Really? This is a separate question than if HSC is usefull as a regression tool, this is about experimental design and introduction of variables.

ok, I do have some notes I made, but can't find them at the moment...so lets cover some of the issues with the study.

1. Although the author(s) cite some research as background, it is worth noting that there is no mention of anyone claiming actually using SC with any kind of result in the field. Obviously the authors are aware of "SC beekeepers", and of the claims of success...yet, it is never mentioned. This is unfortunate, as what has been written, discussed, and debated among beekeepers is very relevant to the research at hand.

2. ...For instance, only one possible mechanism of effectiveness (less room for mites in the small cell) is considered...one of which I know no SC beekeeper I know thinks is the only mechanism (or even part of the mechanism) at play. ...more on this as we proceed.

3. It's rather obvious that no beekeepers (or researchers) consider wax comb (built by bees with or without foundation) and molded plastic comb as equivalent. ...if we did, no one would have an issue with replacing their best wax comb with HSC. This was the most surprising part of the study....with no mention of any issues wrt the experimental model due to the use of plastic comb...again, more on this as we continue.

4. The bees used in the study were taken from colonies that "scored highly on a varroa mite drop test conducted 6 weeks earlier [before the packages used in the study were shaken from them]. So to highlight the issue here, they chose the most mite infested colonies they could, then allowed the mites (and associated problems) to fester for 6 weeks before shaking packages and beginning the study. This seems more like a way to test a "treatment" (shaking the bees onto broodless comb of varying sizes) for varroa infestation rather than a test to see if "small cell comb controls" mites....this is like testing cancer controls on patients that have the worst cases...and letting each case get worse for 6 weeks before treating. Certainly no one that claims any success with SC comb claims to have success doing what was done here....it is a test of something, but it is a straw man argument to imply that they are testing the same thing beekeepers are doing...even in part.

5. WRT the claim made in the introduction:
"As a rule, if a colony of European honeybees does not
receive mite control treatments, the mite population
will grow from just a few mites to several
thousand mites in 3 to 4 years, ultimately killing
the colony "
...is mite treatment the only thing between a dead colony and a live one over a 4 year period? Could the researchers (or have the researchers) reliably keep a colony alive with no manipulations, no feed, no management other than the application of mite treatments...for 4 years?

6. This one is more of a question....in materials and methods, they state:
"feeding them with a 50/50 (v/v) sucrose solution
brushed onto the wire screen of one side of each
package cage. "
....I thought that brushing syrup on a screen like this damages the feet and tongues of the bees inside the cage, and that this was considered poor practice.....anyone know more?

7.
"There were no drone cells in any of the
frames of comb used in this study. "
...
and later...
"When we took our monthly measurements of the
colonies, we cut out any drone comb that the colonies
had built, usually along the bottoms of the frames. At
most, this involved removing 25 drone cells per
colony per inspection; none of the drone comb
contained drone brood. In this way, we prevented
drone rearing in our colonies and this meant that all
the mite reproduction in our study colonies occurred
in cells of worker brood. "
Ok, so a few things are being reported here:
A. That in a colony with NO DRONE COMB AND NO DRONE BROOD that, at most, 25 drone cells were produced a month.

B. That in these cells, no drones are ever reared...in a colony with no drone brood.

C. That removing all the drone comb once a month (comb that never shows any sign of being used to rear drones) that drone rearing is prevented?

...all of this seems hard to believe...or the colonies were under some kind of stress that prevented them from producing drones....such a stress should be looked into as a possible issue with the study, not to be seen as a normal situation.

8.
"We measured the
mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
comb. "
....to me, this reads that they measured 10 cells in the center of each comb (where we know the cells tend to be smaller)....and called it the "mean width". "Mean" can describe a few (related) concepts, but it is beyond any reasonable assumption to clam that measuring 10 cells gives you a "mean" for the entire 2 sides of a comb.

9.
The colonies in the hives with the
plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
rapidly than those in the hives with the
beeswax, standard-cell combs.
Of course, most of us with actual experience with HSC would have predicted this...and could have even suggested ways to mitigate this effect of molded plastic fully drawn comb...cell size may have been a factor here (I don't have experience with fully drawn, molded LC comb and acceptance), but certainly the brand new plastic is a variable that is outside what is being claimed to be tested...but firmly in the way of obtaining data to support the claims of the study

Re: small cell foundation

Rusty,

When you speak of going small cell, am I to conclude you already have larger bees that would need to be regressed or are you starting out with small cell bees? This has a big bearing on the answer to your question since the regression process is done in stages & could take a long time to properly complete. You are going to hear every kind of response to this question as you have already seen. Me, I've been on small cell for 5 years and have never seen a mite on my beeks or on any sticky boards, not a one and I have 2 large cell hives on the same property that I have found a few mites on, not enough to worry about. Like was said I have heard of other small cell beeks whose hives were eat up with mites. So no, small cell is not a miracle cure all. Does it help? It has helped me but others it has not. The problem with any foundation you buy is the chemicals you are bringing into your hive. You have no clue where it came from, whats been used on it or why it was removed from the hive in the first place.

I do heartily agree with the comments about foundationless. That's the route I' going for the above stated reasons. There are a lot more experienced beeks on here than I am, but if I could make a suggestion it would be this; do you own testing if you have the resources to do so. Maybe try 2 - 3 hives on small cell with small cell bees, ( to avoid the regression process ) and see for yourself if small cell works for you. It seems that it's sucess varies from beek to beek. Just a suggestion.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by squarepeg

...unless you are new, and relying on dean's book for guidance.

If you use Dean's book for guidance, you will never have more than 10 frames of HSC in a hive. Furthermore, Dean's book is a beginning beekeeping book. We had no room (or need) to stress things that would be important for a well respected phd researcher at Cornell to consider when designing an experiment.

I don't know how to offer a direct link to this document (I can only access it through a search), but this is the background and progress of the whole project (no mention on how much was spent over the three years).http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/...crisassist.txt

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: The mite Varroa destructor poses the largest threat worldwide to honey bees. This project will evaluate the effectiveness of small-cell combs for the control of Varroa in New York State.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To establish an apiary of 20 genetically homogeneous colonies of European honey bees that are housed in hives with either standard-cell combs or small-cell combs, and that are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. 2) To compare the population dynamics of the mites in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells results in effective control of the Varroa mites. 3) To compare the patterns of colony growth and honey production in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells hampers their growth and productivity.

APPROACH: In year 1, we will prepare 20 hive bodies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs and 20 hive bodies with frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. All combs will be built by providing colonies with honey supers filled with frames of either small-cell or standard-cell foundation. The bees will build these combs while filling them with honey. At the end of the summer, we will extract the honey from these combs so that they can serve as brood combs the following summer. We will also establish 12 source colonies to provide bees the following summer; each colony will be headed by a new Italian queen bee. These queens will be sisters, to minimize genetic differences among colonies. In year 2, we will select the 10 strongest source colonies and will prepare from each colony two equal-size artificial swarms. Each swarm will be given a new Italian queen (queens will be sisters). Because both swarms in a pair will come from the same colony, they will have equal infestations of Varroa mites. In each pair of swarms, we will give one swarm a hive (two hive bodies) with small-cell combs and the other swarm a hive with standard-cell combs. Each month thereafter, we will measure for each colony the number of cells containing brood, the mite infestation level (measured by counting the mite drop per 48 h), and the weight (honey) gain. Using a paired-comparisons statistical analysis, we will test for differences between the two treatments in brood population, mite infestation, and honey production. In year 3, we will continue making the monthly measurements and comparisons between the two treatments.

KEYWORDS: honey bees; varroa mites; small-cell combs

PROGRESS: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
OUTPUTS: Over the three-year period of this study, the PI, Thomas D. Seeley, made 15 presentations of the findings related to the grant at meetings of beekeeper associations. The venues included the Southern Adirondacks Beekeepers Association, the Ohio Beekeepers Association, the New Jersey Beekeepers Association, the British Bee Keepers Association, the Yorkshire Beekeepers (England), the Somerset Beekeepers (England), the Meridian Beekeepers (England), the Maine Beekeepers Association, the Massachusetts Beekeepers Association, the Backyard Beekeepers Association, The Eastern Apicultural Society, the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, the Virginia State Beekeepers Association, the Chester County Beekeepers Association, and the Maryland Beekeepers Association. Each summer, Dr. Seeley mentored a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project, and during the 2009-2010 academic year he worked with one of these students, Sean R. Griffin in the preparation of the manuscript that reports the results of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one Cornell undergraduate student each summer (Madeleine Girard, Sean Griffin, and John Chu). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

IMPACT: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results from New York State match those of two other investigations on this topic that were conducted independently and in parallel in two southern states, Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control Varroa mites without chemicals, this approach is completely ineffective. The research work supported by this grant is about to appear in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and once this formal publication appears the PI will publish a companion report written for beekeepers in a popular beekeeping magazine (Bee Culture).

PUBLICATIONS (not previously reported): 2007/10 TO 2010/09
Seeley, T.D. and S.R. Griffin. 2011. Small-cell comb does not control Varroa mites in colonies of honey bees of European origin. Apidologie. In press.

PROGRESS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
OUTPUTS: Senior personnel: Dr. Thomas D. Seeley made 8 presentations of findings related to the grant at scientific conferences and beekeeper association meetings, and was invited to speak about the research findings at several universities and colleges. These venues included: 1 presentation at a regional scientific workshop (SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines), 1 invited presentation at a monthly meeting of the Backyard Beekeepers Association, 2 invited presentations at the annual meeting of the Eastern Apicultural Association, 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, and 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Virginia State Beekeepers Association. Dr. Seeley continued to mentor a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project throughout the Summer of 2009, and guided him in the preparation of a manuscript regarding another study that was not part of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one undergraduate student (Sean Griffin). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

IMPACT: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results match those of parallel investigations on this topic that were conducted independently in Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control the nites without chemical, this approach is ineffective. The studies that have been supported by this grant will be reported through a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and a beekeepers' magazine (Bee Culture).

PUBLICATIONS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
No publications reported this period

PROGRESS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
OUTPUTS: The principal output over the past year has been an Activity: developing further the methods for getting the bees to build combs with small cells (4.9 mm diameter), rather than their normal size cells (5.4 mm diameter). The key experiment of this study calls for setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor. I have tried various methods for getting bees to build small-cell combs but have not yet found a method that results in combs filled with small cells. Instead, I get combs that are a weird mixture of small cells and quite large cells. So, despite my best efforts over the past two summers, I have not yet performed the key experiment. Given that I have just one more summer of support in this project, I will perform the key experiment next summer using combs of small cells that are made of plastic and that are commercially available. Doing the experiment this way is not ideal, for these combs are too expensive for general use by beekeepers, but using them will enable me to test the still untested (but widely believed) hypothesis that small-cell combs lower the population growth rate of the Varroa mites in a honeybee colony. We shall see! PARTICIPANTS: There have been two participants: myself, and a Cornell undergraduate student, who has worked as the research assistant. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audience for this project is ALL beekeepers in North America and Europe, i.e. all beekeepers who work with the European subspecies of the honey bee and whose colonies are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: As indicated above in the Outputs and Outcomes, I need to stop trying to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built by the bees (my bees won't build combs filled with these diminutive cells), and need to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built of plastic. Although my bees won't give me the combs I need for this experiment, a human manufacturer will!

IMPACT: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
The principal outcome over the past year has been a Change in Knowledge. Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells. I now know that I cannot recommend this approach to Varroa control. There has also been a Change in Action. Because I've not succeeded in getting my bees to build combs filled with small cells, I've decided next summer to perform the key experiment of this project (setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor) using combs of small cells manufactured of plastic, rather than built by the bees of beeswax. This will at least enable me to test the critical hyptothesis: a colony living on small-cell combs will have a lower population growth rate of the Varroa mites than will a colony living on regular-cell combs..

PUBLICATIONS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
No publications reported this period

Re: small cell foundation

For the Record:
CIG Beekeeping, Page 129:

HSC is an injection molded plastic comb with 4.9mm cells. HSC is not foundation, it is fully formed plastic comb. HSC is not a perfect replacement for wax comb. The bottoms of the cells are flat and the cell walls are thick so that the density of brood is closer to that of 5.4mm comb (the cells are 4.9mm across, but 5.4mm center to center). HSC only comes in deep frames. If you want to run medium boxes, you have to trim the frames using a table saw.

Gee...it's almost like we actually said that HSC isn't an equivalent for wax comb, isn't it?
Page 130:

As the broodnest expands, follow the technieques for adding boxes and pyramiding up that we discussed in Chapter 7 [in chapter 7, we only discuss adding boxes with foundation (with a gap at the bottom) or foundationless...not HSC]. Once the HSC has been used by the bees, future bees will accept it freely. Just remember that while HSC will always produce small cell bees, you will never have the density of bees per square inch that is possible with small cell foundation or foundationless comb.

Re: small cell foundation

Re: small cell foundation

I can't understand the heat that this topic generates. If one want's to try small cell or natural cell, the drawing of it costs no more than the industry standard 5.4 mm foundation. If you wish to intermingle the different sizes, it is not detrimental to anything but some engineer types anal sense of order. When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by Vance G

When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?

Vance, since Seeley found it is impossible to get bees to draw small cell....you _must_ be lying...right Dan?

Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells.

Re: small cell foundation

Beeman,

I am starting up again after a 7 year absence. I have the boxes and the foundation from my earlier venture and am debating whether to start up again with what I know or if I should experiment from the get-go with small cell or foundationless. I am strictly a hobbyist and will likely never have more than half-a-dozen or so hives--just enough to have fun with the bees. So I am reading up on the current stuff and basically weighing that against what I already learned and looking for what of my own ideas I need to adjust based on all the new stuff. For instance, I am falling in love with the idea of Minnesota Hygienic stock. And toying with the small cell or no foundation route.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by deknow

Vance, since Seeley found it is impossible to get bees to draw small cell....you _must_ be lying...right Dan?

How can you make such a presumption? There are countless variables at play. It may well have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone does_something_right_or_not. Any study that doesn't reach a conclusion you want, gets subjected to microscopic scrutiny but someone can make statement that agrees with you and it becomes an immediate, uncontested, absolute fact....and anything contradictory must be a failure of technique.
Where_does_lying_enter_into_this?

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: small cell foundation

Rusty,

I hear you. Like you I have fun with the bees. Dr's been telling me for years to get a relaxing hobby, beekeeping was it. Even though I plan to make it a business, it's still fun. Just a thought; if you want to experiment with natural cell you could start a top bar hive. Cost is low, easy to build if you have any wood working skills/tools at all and no foundation worries at all and you don't need an extractor, plus you will get plenty of clean wax that you can use to make your own chemical free foundation, provided you don't treat the TBH. Lots of plans on internet on how to build them. Michael Bush's site has a very simple one & Phil Chandler biobees dot com has on too.

Hope this helps. Have fun and don't get overwhelmed by all the conflicting info you will find. Beekeeping is relative to location. Do what works best for your bees & you.

Re: small cell foundation

Originally Posted by Vance G

I So why all the heat?

I can only speak from my perspective.
I tried small cell. It failed in a number of ways. Iíve documented my experience on Beesource in the past.
The Seeley study demonstrates one typical difficulty. They went to hsc because they couldnít get their bees to draw small cell.
Dennis Murrell documented high losses in his conversion to small cell.
Even Dee Lusby has written about losses during the regression process.
Small cell is promoted by some to beginning beekeepers. Evidently it works for some. I can tell you that there are many others for whom it doesnít. And as new beekeepers, they often donít understand why their colonies failed. Many believe that they were responsible for the collapse. Often they donít try again.
Iíve said this on any number of occasions. I donít care what you choose to try as long as you understand the risks or are experienced enough to know the early signs of trouble. But if you promote a path to new beekeepers that has a high probability of failureÖ.I will challenge you.

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards